Certainly possible, but it doesn’t help the board to be opaque in its statements if that’s the case. They earn back trust by making the point publicly that they don’t tolerate that behavior. The truth will come out and they’ll look just as complicit, which is another invitation to litigation. 

This is an organization that uses clever naming and a modicum of intercompany structuring finesse to present an inaccurate (or more generously stated, incomplete) image to the market (open, it’s not; nonprofit, but not really given its for-profit related party/ies; CEO doesn’t have equity, not in the nonprofit but the whole structure is opaque so who really knows). The board knows exactly how the business is structured, so it seems strange that they are concerned about the CEO’s transparency when they have an org chart that was deliberately and purposefully designed to be the exact opposite. 

 Puis comment ils ont laissé faire le tour des institutions et rencontrer des chefs d'Etats afin de les convaincre de l'utilité de manière éthique et responsable de l'usage  de son oeuvre . Savez vous quand même de beaucoup de pays d'Europe et à la commission de l'EU des professionnels de l'IA et de son usage éthique l'ont  ont étudié avant de donner leurs autorisations même des professionnels universitaires qui ont donné leurs avis